Monday, November 12, 2007

2007 Results: Newly Eligible Ripken, Gwynn and McGwire Make It Into the Hall of Merit Easily!

In his first year of eligibility, legendary shortstop Cal Ripken was elected into the Hall of Merit practically unanimously with 99.83% of all possible points. He earned an “elect me” vote from every voter.

Star hitter Tony Gwynn also made a very strong showing with his 95% of all possible points.

Last but not least, supreme power-hitter Mark McGwire earned a more than respectable 86% of all possible points.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Wow, I find it shocking Saberhagen may be on the verge of induction and Hershiser didn't get a single vote. I haven't studied them to be sure who I'd rank higher (I'd be a more peak-oriented voter), but from eyeballing them recently I wouldn't have thought they'd be so different, especially with all the career voters here. And obviously not much postseason credit is meted out.

The average number of voters is about 48.7 per election, stdev of 5.1
We started with 29 voters in 1898, reaching 45 in 1917.
The peak occurred at 56 ballots for 1934, later tied.
Decline set in, dropping to 45 in 1967, the lowest since the early years.
56 was attained again in 1982 and 1990.
Recent low was 47 in 2000-2001.

I think Hershiser deserves more careful scrutiny than he got this year. His DERA isn't lights out, but he was a good hiter, a good fielder, and peaked in a low-SD league. He is exactly the sort of player that simple sorts by, say, ERA+ are going to miss, and he deserves better than that. I know I didn't quite get around to him myself, so I'm not casting aspersions about others' lack of attention to him.

However, except for the post-season credit, Rick Reuschel bests him in pretty much every dimension of the game, so if we start sweating the details to assess Hershiser accurately, we ought to do the same for Reuschel, who is the candidate I'd love to see pull a Nettles next year.

Raines, Saberhagen, and Smith would not be a bad set of picks for 2008, though.

Well, Reuschel was the predecessor to David Wells on looks, but except for his big arm injury in the early 80s, he was durable, fielded his position well, and hit well: he didn't have the classic "athlete" body type, but he was clearly not "out of shape". I started following him later in his career, when he came to Pittsburgh, but during those years I never saw that his build hurt his game.

As to peak, is Hershiser's 1984-89 really better than Reuschel's 1973-79?

Yes, Hershiser has the gaudier ERA+ scores and IP totals relative to context, but when you account for Hershiser's getting to play in a good pitcher's park (93-98 PF during his peak) in Dodger Stadium while Reuschel was laboring in Wrigley field while it was a hitter's paradise (105 to 112 PF during his peak) and for Hershiser getting, well, average fielding support while Reuschel got _terrible_ fielding support, Reuschel's peak starts looking pretty good.

You recall Joe Dimino saying a number of times about Reuschel that his 1977 was truly one of the great pitching seasons of the decade? You might ask him if he thinks Hershiser has any season that matches it: the answer, I would guess, is no.

These are the kinds of details that need to be sweated in both cases. Dissing Reuschel because he was a fat guy who played for bad teams isn't close to a fair assessment of his case.

Reuschel's '77 is indubitably an HoM peak season, and a damn good one at that, and his '85 was also outstanding. Those two seasons hold up quite well against the remaining backlog pitchers IMO on a peak basis--not Dean, obviously, but certainly in the same ballpark (and probably better) than someone like Tiant.

McGraw got screwed by Parkinson's voting a minute too late, and by the absence of Mark Shirk. Hope they're there for 2008.

Reuschel's best two years are better than Hershiser's best two; Hershiser leads in seasons 3-6 and Reuschel reclaims the advantage after that.

Reuschel's fielders weren't *that* bad, Chris. BP says they cost him about 2 points of RA+. I'm a big Reuschel fan, but his case doesn't revolve around being the victim of poor fielders--rather, it's that he was a long-career pitcher with good ERA+ and legit Cy Young-type peak seasons in an era when those guys were few and far between. If you group him with the 70's star glut, he doesn't look so impressive, but their careers started 7-8 years earlier than his. If you group him with guys like Stieb, then he looks like a no-brainer. My analysis suggests the latter interpretation is more accurate.

What particularly caught my attention were 1974-75: his fielders cost him half a run each season -- that's about 10 points of RA+. Sunnyday2 was talking about peak, and I would claim that Reuschel's weak fielding support makes his peak in particular appear lower than it was.

I don't want to argue against Reuschel since I really like him, but I think BP is being too generous on its fielding adjustment for 1977. Looking at the DRA numbers for the '77 Cubs, the main reason the team grades out badly is that the team had an inordinately low number of infield popups--51 runs' worth below average. Since those plays are virtually automatic and discretionary, they really don't tell you very much about the quality of the fielders. Using the DRA numbers, I calculate Reuschel's "true" DERA as 2.80. But BP's DERA numbers are screwy, since the league average is always actually lower than 4.50. Correcting for this error for the 1977 NL, Reuschel's DERA comes out to 2.73, not 2.65 as his DT page has it. In case .08 of DERA in a single year moves your ballot around. :)

I am working to get a revised version of DERA using DRA fielding adjustments in time for the 2008 ballot.

Sorry I didn't vote this year. I was sick most of the week and helping family members move the rest of the time. My vote would not have changed the winners, but Walters and Leach were the only others in the top 10 on my ballot. Cravath would have made the top 10 had I posted. Should be an interesting 2008!

Lundy was re-"discovered" just last "year!" The challenge is getting the whole electorate to give him their full consideration at this late stage. The new MLE's, which match his reputation, show him as *comfortably* above the established threshold--but how many people have looked at them? This is why I half-jokingly suggested in a previous thread that he should be a required disclosure.

Trust me, between me, 'zop, you, and even people who more or less hate me like sunnyday (JOKE), the electorate will be hearing a LOT about Lundy in the next two weeks. If we can get everyone to give him a full and fair review, I'm extremely optimistic about his 2008 chances.

DanRLooking at the DRA numbers for the '77 Cubs, the main reason the team grades out badly is that the team had an inordinately low number of infield popups--51 runs' worth below average. Since those plays are virtually automatic and discretionary, they really don't tell you very much about the quality of the fielders.

What is the problem in detail? Evidently putouts count more at some fielding positions than at others, so a team defense may be rated better or worse (locally overrated or underrated) depending on who catches a pop fly. For example, if "Snags" Reuschel scampers from the mound all over the infield, taking everything he can reach, that causes his team defense to be underrated?

Paul Wendt--In DRA, all infield fly outs are considered automatic outs and treated like strikeouts, credited to the pitcher, no matter who catches them. They have no effect on the evaluation of the fielders.

andrew siegel--Most of Nettles' support came from career voters, and Cey didn't last long enough for them.

Several regular voters were absent in 2007.
It may be common to re-examine those candidates who (re)gain "elect me" bonus points more closely than backlog candidates further down the ballot.

With those two qualifications, the 2007 results show that Redding, McGraw, Smith, Saberhagen, and Puckett are positioned to (re)gain the most bonus points in 2008. In particular, the leaders Smith and Saberhagen are not notably weak in this regard. If Redding (re)gains eight bonuses and Smith five, for example, that makes up only about one quarter of the gap between them.

I think Dick Redding (especially on a peak/prime analysis) holds up well against any of these guys. Do the MLE's already figure in war credit?

No. He missed a little more than one full season (about 2/3 of '18 and 2/3 of '19). The MLEs give him 6 WS for the one and 4 for the other. His preceding seasons were 40-33-27 and his following seasons were 19-21-19. A conservative amount of war credit would give him another 30 WS for the time he missed.

32. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 10:36 AM (#2613323)Paul Wendt--In DRA, all infield fly outs are considered automatic outs and treated like strikeouts, credited to the pitcher, no matter who catches them. They have no effect on the evaluation of the fielders.

In #29, I was guessing the significance of discretionary plays in #21 (quoted again below). Having guessed wrong I don't have another guess.

from DanR on Reuschel #21I don't want to argue against Reuschel since I really like him, but I think BP is being too generous on its fielding adjustment for 1977. Looking at the DRA numbers for the '77 Cubs, the main reason the team grades out badly is that the team had an inordinately low number of infield popups--51 runs' worth below average. Since those plays are virtually automatic and discretionary, they really don't tell you very much about the quality of the fielders.

Not sure what you're guessing about, Paul. The point is that the '77 Cubs defense was probably not as bad as BP says it was; it just looks bad superficially because opposing batters hit significantly fewer popups against their pitchers than they did against other teams' staffs.

From the discussion thread which includes consensus scores by OCF
181. Eric Chalek (Dr. Chaleeko) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 10:20 AM (#2613304)Wow, my basement-bound consensus score has recently taken a turn for the downright agreeable. Ghastly, I tell you.

Maybe you have become influential Eric. Still ghastly?
More likely the fine-tuned consensus algorithm goes haywire with data such as 2007 provides - "elect three" with three nearly unanimous newcomers.

Marc,
Regarding the meteoric rise of Graig Nettles, I know you mean his two giant steps at the end, 180 to 230 to 320 points. Dobie Moore was a notable celestial body of some kind, maybe a comet with a long orbit. I suspect that he would not have reached the zenith without your campaign.

DanR,
You observed that pop putouts are discretionary so I was guessing how that would affect the WARP measure of infield defense, presumably via who was catching the pop flies --discretion within the infield was my public guess (although Reuschel scampering off the mound was facetious).
My second guess would have been that their outfielders handled a high share of pops. The outfielders have better perspective, maybe that is overriding against the daytime sky. By the way did the Cubs frequently trail the league in infield pops? (51 estimated runs below average in 1977. Wow!) If so then I wonder too whether batter hit more pop flies at night.

Yes, the Cubs consistently had *extremely* low infield fly outs from 1960 to 1985--50 runs is quite high but hardly out of the ordinary (average is -30). It is indubitably a park effect--I imagine Wrigley has very little foul ground? The numbers I have suggest that very low popups and very high home runs are the two main factors accounting for Wrigley's 110+ park factors through this period.

Note that this still means WARP is double-counting, since it first applies a park factor and then applies the NRA-DERA adjustment. That said, we're squabbling over peanuts in this case--DRA has Chicago's team D at -21 in 1977, BP has it at -32.

As we wind down this phase of the Hall of Merit, I've got another "Fun Time" project started at Baseball-Fever. I call it "The Ultimate Quest for Candidates". Round one is a series of 12 polls to determine the best hall of fame candidates from each decade.

I would greatly appreciate any members of the HoM electorate who drop in and contribute their expert opinion.

Thanks for the link DanG. I'm surprised to see the weak support for Gavvy Cravath on baseball-fever. Cravath fans should stop by the website and support the man. Great to see voters recognizing Wes Ferrell, Heinie Groh, and Sherry Magee though.

Thanks for the link DanG. I'm surprised to see the weak support for Gavvy Cravath on baseball-fever. Cravath fans should stop by the website and support the man. Great to see voters recognizing Wes Ferrell, Heinie Groh, and Sherry Magee though.

I totally agree. Veach is out-polling Cravath 12-5 at present?!? Even Babe Adams gets more love (7-5). We need a few more good voters over there.

DanG, so how the hell do you actually vote? I registered and logged in and all of that crap, and my window says "you cannot vote on this poll." Say I wanted to vote for Wilbur Cooper. What exactly would I click on? The only thing that is live is the actual number, in his case being 13 at the moment.

Not to mention where is the 1910s poll? I suppose I should just poke around but the thing strikes me as byzantine.

The following would be the unofficial opinion of the HOM (as expressed by our voting patterns).
Of course, we can quibble about who goes in which decade.

The slashes? (/) The first marks the border between "frontlog" and "midlog", the second between "midlog" and "backlog". Front-loggers got more than 50% of the #1's (or would have if not for the presence of another "front-logger" on the ballot, eg Ruth vs Hornsby). Midloggers didn't get 50% but also didn't mingle with the real backloggers (more formal def'n courtesy of Paul Wendt).

Forgot to add. Frontloggers comprise almost 50% of the HOM; they are our "upper-half". Midloggers are the next 20%; they would be serious candidates for a writer's HOM. Backloggers are the remaining third; almost all of them would be removed by a "small-hall" advocate.

DanG, so how the hell do you actually vote? I registered and logged in and all of that crap, and my window says "you cannot vote on this poll." Say I wanted to vote for Wilbur Cooper. What exactly would I click on? The only thing that is live is the actual number, in his case being 13 at the moment.

Not to mention where is the 1910s poll? I suppose I should just poke around but the thing strikes me as byzantine.

Actually, I prefer the format of their forums to those here at BBTF. Two main reasons: 1) You can EDIT your posts whenever you want; 2) Anyone can post a poll - You can set a closing date if you want; you can allow multiple choices or not; you can set it to see who cast votes, or not.

I wonder if you're not having browser issues. I use IE or AOL browser and have no trouble. The only time you should get the message "you cannot vote on this poll" is if you're not logged in or if you've already voted on the poll.

The link I provided is to the introductory thread for the project. The last post there has links to the three threads with the polls posted in the project so far: the 1910's, 1920's and 1930's. The poll is at the top of each thread.

Midloggers didn't get 50% but also didn't mingle with the real backloggers (more formal def'n courtesy of Paul Wendt).

Yes.
I made the judgment call to depart from the formal definition in case of Joe Jackson and therefore Pete Hill. I overlooked Jackson's poor showing when he was newly eligible and called a "quasi-first ballot" HOMer. In turn Pete Hill did not finish behind a real backlogger (Jackson) so he is also a quasi-first ballot HOMer. If jimd made the same call, he would promote Jackson to the frontlog but leave Hill in the midlog, I think.

(Given 'frontlog' and 'backlog', this new 'midlog' is a happily coined term. The midlog is all of my quasi-first ballot HOMers who are not in the frontlog. Hill is not on jimd's list for the 1900s or 1910s because the HOF elected him last year.)

A few real backloggers made strong showings here in some informal sense. Glasscock, certainly. Maybe Richardson and one or more of the 1900s.

When trying to determine the electoral strength of a particular candidate, the boycotts get in the way. So it makes sense to ignore the showing of those affected candidates in those years (for Jackson and Rose; Anson's election is the only sample we have for him).

This makes Jackson and Hill mid-loggers both. Even in his election year, Jackson received only 35% of the #1's, Pete Hill and the backlog being the only competition, and Hill only got one #1, though he received a number of #2's behind Jackson.

A few real backloggers made strong showings here in some informal sense. Glasscock, certainly. Maybe Richardson and one or more of the 1900s.

Radbourn edged Wright in 1898 by 7 points. Voters then backed off on Radbourn while we debated early pitching and fielding, causing him to sink down into the backlog, carrying the status of Keefe, Wright, Glasscock, and Rusie with him. Those 4 would otherwise be mid-loggers.